Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 96-90,96-91 <br />it considered its response to Violations 1 and 3 to be "appropriate," but the response to Violation 2 to be inappropriate. AFO <br />explained, regarding Violation 2, that the facts alleged by the Tatu ms, if true, would constitute a violation of the State <br />pwgr ni and that the DMG was obligated to conduct a more thorough investigation. On the same date, OSM also <br />informed the Tatuuns of the results of its review of DMG's response. <br />By letter dated February 14, 1994, DMG sought informal review of AF(Ys determination regarding Violation 2, in <br />accordance with the procedures set torth in 30 C.F.R. § 842.1 I ft l )(iii), asserting dhat the inappropriate finding should be <br />reversed because its investigation into die technical aspects of the alleged violation was ongoing. On May 26, 1994, the <br />Deputy Director, OSM, responded to DMG's request for informal review by granting it an additional 60 days in which to <br />complete its investigation. <br />By letter dated July 18, 1994, DMG infonmed AFO that it I-kd completed its investigation and drat, based on a letter <br />limm Jim Tatu rn stating that it appeared that an airshaft constructed by BRI had not harmed the water well, it believed die <br />insure had been resolved. It regi ested that OSM find its response to Violation 2 to be appropriate. AFO forwarded this <br />information to the Deputy Director, OSM, by mernorandum dated .luly 29, 1994, stating "AFO does not believe that <br />DMG's investigation answers die question whether or not the mine shaft has impacted the water well." <br />By letter dated December 2, 1994, the Taturns requested inforal review, Pursuant to 30 CY R § 842.15(a), of that <br />part of the AFCYs February 199,4 decision relating to Violations 1 and 3. The Deputy Director, OSM, acknowledged this <br />rUlUest in a January 18, 1995, "interim response," wherein he also stated that his response wound serve as "an update <br />wp-ding our pending decision to Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology's (DMG) request for informal review of Part <br />[Violation] 2 ofthe sa me TDN.' Fie informed the Tatunns that "the Colorado DMG has made a finn commitment to <br />promptly take the lead in conducting a thorough technical investigation to determine whether Basin Resource's Underground <br />mining operations have impacted the water level in your well and have caused subsidence-related damage to your property." <br />I le stated that upon co repletion of DMG's technical investigation and review ofsubsequrent actions taken by DMG, OSM <br />would notify them of its decision on the violations. <br />On February 1, 1995, DMG and OSM officials, the Tatuuns, their mining engineer consurltant, and representatives of <br />BRI all visited the Tatu rns' house to conduct an investigation of the subsidence allegation In his February 8, 1995, report of <br />that investigation, DMG official; Jim Pendleton, an engineering geologist, stated at page 4 that there was "sufficient evidence <br />to conclude that mine subsidence is not the cause of the Tatu rn residence's observed structural syrnptorns." In part, he based <br />151 IBLA 291